Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84193
  • *Latest: eirik

  • *Total Posts: 897202
  • *Total Topics: 15809
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 631012 times)

Offline vonwolf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1335 on: May 20, 2011, 04:48:23 PM »
And may I add that it's a matter of some considerable concern to me that Glen is allowed to litter and pollute this thread with this ridiculous and confrontational and rude posts - and that Harti, notwithstanding repeated requests - is not prepared to do anything about it.

It is almost as if he DOES NOT WANT THIS NEWS TO BREAK.  It is almost as if he ACTUALLY WANTS THIS THREAD TO BE INCINERATED.

I find that extraordinary.  In the light of the evidence that we now have to hand on PROOF of COP INFINITY - then one would assume that he would do everything to nurture rather than KILL OFF this knowledge.  I CANNOT understand it - not with the best will in the world.  WHY?  WHY when so much evidence is to hand is he most earnestly attempting to block the information?  Is it because he'd prefer that the news does not come from me?  Is he selecting the proof that he requires - instead of the proof as it's presented?  Is there some kind of selection in play?  Or is it perhaps that he does not actually support this drive of ours to crack the energy barriers?  Or must this information first come from a MAN - as opposed to a WOMAN?  Not sure?  I give up.  All I know is that he is positively and anxiously ensuring that this thread get flamed.

I also need you to all be alert to this.  I personally am doubly concerned that the romero test may - indeed - have been a required distraction to this our news.  It certainly seems that way.

Regards,
Rosemary

  Hi Rose;
  Glens post just make him look silly, he's just repeating the same thing over and over again I know I don't pay him any attention and I doubt anyone els dose. His little trick of resizing the pages is very annoying and I wish it would stop but desperate time and all. Just keep moving forward and let him dwell inn the past, no  harm done.
  Good Luck as always Pete

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1336 on: May 20, 2011, 04:55:49 PM »
  Hi Rose;
  Glens post just make him look silly, he's just repeating the same thing over and over again I know I don't pay him any attention and I doubt anyone els dose. His little trick of resizing the pages is very annoying and I wish it would stop but desperate time and all. Just keep moving forward and let him dwell inn the past, no  harm done.
  Good Luck as always Pete

Good advice - thanks.  But it's Harti's encouragement of those posts that are actually worrying me.  Can't work it out.  And the most reasonable explanation is not a happy one.  I know I'm skating on thin ice in even referring to it - but it's a question that needs an answer.  We're meant to be open source.  And we're meant to be advancing OU.  What gives? 

And Pete - it's always a comfort to find you there.

Rosie

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1337 on: May 20, 2011, 05:21:53 PM »
  Hi Rose;
  Glens post just make him look silly, he's just repeating the same thing over and over again I know I don't pay him any attention and I doubt anyone els dose. His little trick of resizing the pages is very annoying and I wish it would stop but desperate time and all. Just keep moving forward and let him dwell inn the past, no  harm done.
  Good Luck as always Pete

I think most agree with this. 

Bill
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 05:42:06 PM by Pirate88179 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1337 on: May 20, 2011, 05:21:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1338 on: May 20, 2011, 06:59:27 PM »
A prophet couldn't have done it better ....

90 pages and still not what was asked for verification of a finding of a claim of COP> INFINITY .....

This has been done in the past future here in this forum on a COP> 17 experimental device with unsubstantiated claims that were never proved "WORLD WIDE" ...


http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg285740#msg285740
_______________________________________________________________________

QUOTE -

There are hundreds of readers, members, engineers and academics that "DO NOT AGREE"  at all with your testing and evaluation of your experimental device because it's not in any scientific method known that can be reproduced to anyone's satisfaction for a verification of a COP> INFINITY .

You Rosemary, as a boasting proxy inventor that has claimed submitting many documents for engineering and academic "PEER" review, you Rosemary of all people most certainly know all the mandated requirements for a scientific verification of FACTS.

You Rosemary, are denying everyone in existence the chance to do any verification testing and evaluation on this COP> INFINITY circuit and even have posted a 100%"FALSE", fake and inaccurate circuit http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links  for a WILD GOOSE chase or Chinese fire drill for anyone trying to replicate your findings by design.


MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS -

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .

7) A "LIVE streaming broadcast" of the device testing event in real time for 48 hours minimum untouched .... all that's required is a registering for a FREE LIVE streaming broadcast account and a web camera showing the claim of COP > INFINITY


_______________________________________________________________________



Items number one (1) through six (6) word for word was also asked by Stefan ...... WHERE IS THE REQUIRED INFORMATION ?  ???



Is this another COP> 17  invention of Rosemary's where 300 to 500 people over 10 years spent $300.00 in just parts for as close as possible replication ( $ 120,000.00 US ) to make try to make something work and no one could World Wide ???


Fuzzy
 :P


http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/   ( Great Reading )

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1339 on: May 20, 2011, 07:36:37 PM »
COP> 17 ...... by Rosemary Ainslie

Please find attached information that was given to the open source community on a guaranteed claim of a device with a efficiency of COP> 17 .... Rosemary Ainslie's finding and proof of that device.


http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/quantum_october_2002.pdf   ( Quantum - October 2002   The Journal for Electronics Professionals )


_____________________________________________________________

Quantum - October 2002   The Journal for Electronics Professionals
Transient Energy enhances Energy Co-Efficients /Authors - RA Ainslie & BC Buckley
( "NO" Editorial Review )

EIT paper - IEEE 2009 AFRICON - "ELECTRO/INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE"
COUNTER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE ENABLES OVERUNITY RESULTS IN ELECTRIC SYSTEMS
[http://www.palensky.org/africon09/]

Pretoria News - November 14, 2002
"Circuit That Defies Basic Laws of Physics"
Own Correspondent  -  Author   R A Ainslie    ( "NO" Editorial Review )

_____________________________________________________________


GOOD LUCK  !!!

No one "World Wide" was able to make a verified replication ...... 


Fuzzy
 :P

http://rosemaryainslie-publicblog.blogspot.com/      ( GREAT READING )   ::)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1339 on: May 20, 2011, 07:36:37 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1340 on: May 20, 2011, 09:26:52 PM »
A clarification of the scope results presented for the self-oscillating circuit.

All measurements are instantaneous (t) except for the resulting average power of the battery taken from p(t). The resulting average of VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) as shown on the schematic is -125W.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1341 on: May 21, 2011, 05:03:05 AM »
Guys - a friend of mine got his circuit apparatus to work away from the functions generator and is running the switch off the same battery supply source.  12 volts took the temperature of the solder iron to 235 degrees centigrade and climbing.  The results still a little brittle as after a time the waveform collapsed.  Anyway - it's very good news as this is further proof that these results are NOT the result of grounding issues.  And it seems that his design for the function generator replacement - works.  Just needs fine tuning.  I should learn more about this on Sunday.

And Poynty - I realise you want to discuss the significance of your sims - on forum here - but I'll pass - at least until this thread is cleaned up.  I'm growing weary of picking my path around turd droppings.  If and when Harti affords us the protection required for this kind of information - then I think we'd both be happy to disclose, discuss, debate - in public here.  Until then - I'll just stick to the disclosures of our results.  And thanks for clarifying those results across the CSR.

And I'll start with that waveform that we generated last night - which, unfortunately, only lasted less than an hour.  It defaulted to a higher frequency - and the temperature dropped radically and fast.  No significant variation in either case to the battery voltages.

Regards,
Rosemary

ABJECT APOLOGIES - THE FIRST WAS THE WRONG WAVEFORM.  THIS SCREEN DOWNLOAD APPLIES.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1341 on: May 21, 2011, 05:03:05 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1342 on: May 21, 2011, 05:51:03 AM »
And just to round off here - just a gentle reminder to all readers.  That Harti is tolerating Glen's posts is PROOF that he is trying to get rid of this information.  He is not banning me outright - as I have not breached ANY required protocols.  Glen on the other hand is doing so and doing it FLAGRANTLY. 

I am reasonably satisfied that the RomeroUK demonstration is a hoax as admitted by Romero.  The reason that Harti is giving this his support is because it will make it seem as if he is plugging over unity interests.  He CANNOT ignore the evidence that we've presented - as vouched for by 6 qualified engineers - 15 members of the public at a public demonstration - as recorded impeccably by the most sophisticated measuring equipment - and as presented in our report - unless he is determined to deflect these facts away from public view and to somehow deny them.

Please be warned.  These forums are NOT intended to promote OU technologies but to frustrate them. There can be no other explanation.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1343 on: May 21, 2011, 03:52:24 PM »
And clearly everyone is way too embarrassed at the blatant posting abuses that are going on here to speak up in my defense.  These forums are harsh and characterised by an entirely inappropriate politicising that are spawned from Hell and initialised by Gobbels. Shame on you all.  I am an old woman - for God's sake.  And I'm simply trying to alert you all to the reality of our own test results as opposed to the openly acknowledged fraudulent misrepresentations of Romero.  I am entirely satisfied that his demonstration of perpetual motion was introduced as a much needed distraction to these truths that we're uncovering.  And I'm now satisfied that Harti had grown so used to hearing of my idiocy and incompetence that he had also grown to believe it.  Therefore this offer to expose this technology here on his forum was simply intended as an easy route to public discreditation of the results that we are showing.  Since that failed - he's attempting a dual attack including a vicarious incineration of the thread by one party and outright denial of our results by another.

Here's what CANNOT be denied.  Measurement of energy delivered by a supply source can ONLY be based on wattage calculated as vi dt.  The ONLY way to calculate amperage delivered is by putting a shunt with a low resistive value in series with the supply to determine the rate of current flow.  And the only way to measure the voltage across the battery is to put a volt meter across the battery.  And then one needs to compute the product of those two values - in real time.  And the ONLY way to do this correctly is to allow for as many samples as is possible.  And this is PERFECTLY enabled by the LeCroy that we use extensively as it offers a sample range typically of 500 000 samples per screen download.  And that LeCroy is ALSO able to compute the product of the voltage across both the shunt resistor and the battery IN REAL TIME.  That's the math function.  And at optimised settings on our circuit that math function PROVES the results - being that there is more energy that is returned to the supply than was first delivered.  IT'S COP INFINITY.  And IT'S THAT SIMPLE.  And it's THAT UNDENIABLE.

What has been called for is that we run those tests to prove that the battery exceeds it's watt hour ratings.  I put it to you - Harti -  that were I do do this test then those results would ALSO BE CONTENDED.  And I'd be embroiled in detailed and expensive tests for a month or so with NO SATISFACTION for this argument and this evidence.  Under the absurd banner for demanding 'extraordinary proof' to establish an 'extraordinary claim' the fact is that ANY required proof is intended to NEVER actually be sufficient.  Were we to be given ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that the 'battery draw-down' tests would constitute conclusive proof - then I am on record.  I would personally finance that test.  But for some reason it is EXPECTED OF US to perform this test with NO GUARANTEES WHATSOEVER that it would make any material difference to the ENTIRE LACK OF CREDIBILITY that our test results elicit.

This is a sad day for me.  Because I am also now aware of the fact that Poynty is posting evidence of the same results that we are getting in his simulations and YET he is denying the very evidence that he's uncovering.  Surprisingly - he supports the highly questionable claims of Romero's.  You see what gives folks.  The intention is to distract and confuse and deny and debate.  The trick is NEVER TO ACKNOWLEDGE.  And if you do lend support - let it be for facts that are never likely to be repeated.  Not on highly repeatable evidence - showing up  on EACH AND EVERY variation of the circuit that we are attempting.  This media for the promotion of over unity is a FARCE.  It is ABSOLUTELY designed to bury all claims that prove over unity and to allow NOTHING but evidence that remains entirely debatable and entirely unsupported.  And then ask yourselves - as I do repeatedly - WHAT in FACT is going on here?  WHY are we, the public being enticed to make any disclosures at all?  Because what they result in is THE URGENT EFFORTS of some skilled players - to ABSOLUTELY DENY EVERYTHING.

My comfort is in the enormous readership that this thread enjoys.  At least - out there - are many who can still learn of our advances.  And until Harti actually bans me - I intend making that information very well advertised and very well known.  Else this will simply disappear from any public notice at all.  And then we can kiss goodbye to any hope of furthering this worthy cause which - I suspect - is what is actually behind the agenda of these forums.

And I challenge Harti to deny this and prove me wrong and do what is required to CLEAN UP THIS THREAD.  Else there is absolute endorsement of this agenda.  I've said this before.  There can be NO OTHER EXPLANATION.

Regards,
Rosemary     

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1343 on: May 21, 2011, 03:52:24 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1344 on: May 21, 2011, 07:58:28 PM »
This is a sad day for me.  Because I am also now aware of the fact that Poynty is posting evidence of the same results that we are getting in his simulations and YET he is denying the very evidence that he's uncovering.     

Consider the cup as half-full Rose. The fact that I am able to show evidence produced by a simulation that is similar to your own, is a good thing.

The only sad part in my opinion, is that no one, including yourself has yet questioned or challenged the results I have presented.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1345 on: May 21, 2011, 08:10:38 PM »
Consider the cup as half-full Rose. The fact that I am able to show evidence produced by a simulation that is similar to your own, is a good thing.

The only sad part in my opinion, is that no one, including yourself has yet questioned or challenged the results I have presented.

.99


Poynt - how can you say that?  You've given a variation of the circuit that includes a resistor at the positive rail of the battery.  Why?  We have NO SUCH RESISTOR ON OUR CIRCUIT.  Why do you NOT include 3.3mH inductance on the wires on either side of the battery terminals?  Why do you NOT vary the inductance around the circuit components to reach that negative product?  We're NOT lying about the results on the LeCroy.  We couldn't if we wanted to.  So.  If you're NOT getting the same results then rather ASK ME what to vary.  Or better still.  Tell us why your variation works?  Even that would help.  The ONLY THING THAT COUNTS IS THIS.  How much energy is being delivered by the supply?  If that results shows a NEGATIVE product - THEN THERE'S SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY GOING ON!!!!!!!  That you find ANY value with a negative voltage product through a simulation is AMAZING.  WHY are you NOT amazed?  It is PROFOUNDLY SIGNIFICANT.  It means - at its least - that your software which is designed within classical structures and algorithms ALLOWS FOR OVER UNITY????  THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY.  It should be a WOW moment.  It should be keeping you awake at nights. 

UNLESS you plan to argue that the vi dt IS NOT THE CORRECT equation to apply to the power measurements.  In which case you'd need to take up cudgels with many, many more people than I need to with my own eccentric take on current flow.

Rosemary

ADDED 
For instance - too - WHY did you include capacitance in your evaluation on the previous circuit and yet on this variation you DON'T?  You change things Poynt - and you DON'T explain why you do so.  And they're small and subtle changes.  And you and I both know what a HUGE difference this makes.  I'm inclined to think that you WILL NOT find those negative values on our test because that's your whole intention.  But you must surely KNOW that there are others who will be doing this and who WILL find it.  And I'm not sure why you run that risk.  I am sick and tired of second guessing.  What's very apparent is that you are NOT playing your cards openly.  And this is OPEN SOURCE.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1345 on: May 21, 2011, 08:10:38 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1346 on: May 21, 2011, 08:33:56 PM »
And guys,  for those of you who are not familiar with the circuit parameters.  What's needed is that one uses thick copper wire - resistors with a great deal of mass and not too much inductance - and that way you will - invariably - generate more energy away from the supply than first delivered.

And the reason for this - as propounded in that thesis - is that the inductive/conductive circuit material itself may have the required properties to liberate their own energy potentials through the simple application of inductive laws.  Therefore INDUCTANCE IS MUCH REQUIRED.  But NOT in the form of an inductor - as that also generates a counter force that negates the benefit in the thermal efficiencies that is otherwise enabled.   

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1347 on: May 21, 2011, 09:06:44 PM »

Poynt - how can you say that?  You've given a variation of the circuit that includes a resistor at the positive rail of the battery.  Why?  We have NO SUCH RESISTOR ON OUR CIRCUIT.
The 2 Ohm resistance included in my recent schematics was added because your own simulation diagrams show this resistor. This value is somewhat realistic for the total battery wiring resistance. Of course you have not added a physical resistor there, but the wiring will exhibit a finite resistance per foot, and that resistance is "unseen", just as the wire inductance is also unseen. You have included that inductance in the simulation, and so have I; why do you not object to that as well?

Quote
Why do you NOT include 3.3mH inductance on the wires on either side of the battery terminals?
I have included 2uH on either side of the battery wiring. I am sure you meant uH and not mH.

Quote
Why do you NOT vary the inductance around the circuit components to reach that negative product?
I am not sure what you mean here. I have indeed shown a negative product.

Quote
That you find ANY value with a negative voltage product through a simulation is AMAZING.  WHY are you NOT amazed?  It is PROFOUNDLY SIGNIFICANT.  It means - at its least - that your software which is designed within classical structures and algorithms ALLOWS FOR OVER UNITY????  THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY.  It should be a WOW moment.  It should be keeping you awake at nights. 
Please explain why it is amazing and how that negative product is produced?

Quote
UNLESS you plan to argue that the vi dt IS NOT THE CORRECT equation to apply to the power measurements.
Instantaneous power measurement is valid if applied properly. The measurement I made with the sim produces a result of -125W. In your opinion is that measurement correct? (note the VBAT probe position).

Quote
For instance - too - WHY did you include capacitance in your evaluation on the previous circuit and yet on this variation you DON'T?
I removed the capacitor to appease YOUR objection to it. The small capacitor that was there makes very little difference to the results, so it is essentially immaterial.

Quote
You change things Poynt - and you DON'T explain why you do so.
Indeed I do explain things, and I just did again.

Quote
I'm inclined to think that you WILL NOT find those negative values on our test because that's your whole intention.  But you must surely KNOW that there are others who will be doing this and who WILL find it.
I have no doubt that you can and will find those negative values. I have never denied that they exist when the measurements are taken according to your methods.

Quote
I am sick and tired of second guessing.  What's very apparent is that you are NOT playing your cards openly.
I ask only for your participation in the walk-through exercise I am attempting to engage in here. No second guessing is necessary. My cards are on the table, and the simulation is not lying. I have clearly shown the measurement results and how and where those results were obtained. Those results are completely open for debate, challenge and questioning, yet no one has done so. I invite any criticism of those results and how I obtained them (keeping in mind that Rose has endorsed them as being in line with her own results, so the results obtained by simulation should NOT be one of the criticisms please; I believe we are already well beyond that debate).

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1348 on: May 22, 2011, 05:29:58 AM »
Poynty - I am happy to discuss this with you OFF forum - until such time as this thread has been scrubbed and disinfected.

Until then I will ONLY report on our continuing results.  And - as required - complain about the need of some URGENT INTERVENTIONS.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1349 on: May 22, 2011, 05:48:15 AM »
And Poynty - if you want me to discuss the circuit then give me reason to discuss OUR circuit and not your variation of it.  You have NOT endorsed our numbers through Spice.  Until you do - then there really is no basis for any argument at all.

And WHY this is required is because there is no way to modify the amount of energy applied without the use of the 2 Q-array - at least.  The 2 Q-array - together with the functions generator allows for the control over the switch that it can become a booster converter without ANY COST OF ENERGY  from the supply to enable those boosted energy levels.  We're dealing with a remarkably efficient technology that is able to far exceed the efficiencies of power delivery together with the efficient control over the reqired and effective level of wattage dissipated on the load.

Regards,
Rosie

 

OneLink